Slashdot Mirror

This experiment could be seen as validating a study from last year, showing that people are more likely to behave lawfully in an environment with less litter and graffiti. The result is in line with the "broken window" theory -- that people get cues from their environment when deciding what behavior is socially acceptable.

Along the same lines, an attempt at evolving an oscillator got the ol' Evolution Is Cleverer Than You Are treatment: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2732-radio-emerges-from-the-electronic-soup.html

From what I've read on the subject of machine evolution (mostly articles for the layperson), the end results are often completely baffling. It works, but the reason why isn't very obvious. In a few cases, I recall reading about evolved antenna schematics & shapes that worked REALLY well, but made absolutely no sense, or took advantage of things that engineers normally consider flaws/problems to be overcome in design.

I think this is the original http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621085.000-creatures-from-primordial-silicon--let-darwinism-loose-in-an-electronics-lab-and-just-watch-what-it-creates-a-lean-mean-machine-that-nobody-understands-clive-davidson-reports.html. Full text here http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73.

I've wondered if he ever figured out what the useless cells were for.

...Stu

New Scientist has weighed in: it seems there's some support for their numbers. However, note that the car's footprint was calculated on 10,000km a year. If you use a car this little, you'd be better off using public transport and renting the few times a year that you need your own car.

It's just not that high, you have to really stretch the numbers and miss some important factors in a biased manner to reach that conclusion, just as the article has.

Here's the problem with that: they've actually obtained some figures and done some maths, and come up with an interesting and unexpected conclusion.

You're contradicting them based entirely on figures plucked from the air, and gut feel.

The New Scientist write up gives more detail: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?page=1

Now, perhaps there is bias in their assumptions, but even if they're wrong by a factor of 4, then a dog uses as much resource as half a Land Cruiser.

ignoring the cost of manufacturing and replacement components as TFA did

The more detailed New Scientist coverage explicitly states that manufacturing is included. Replacement components is not mentioned - but to know for sure you'd have to look at the book itself.

Again, I have two dogs, I know what they consume including all the hidden costs and impact they have

There's a discrepancy somewhere that has to be explained. My guess is that you don't actually know the impact of meat production (even the low grade meat used for pet food). I'm a meat eater, and whenever I read about the resource that goes into meat, it shocks me. I have to work quite hard to ignore it!

New Scientist's coverage goes into more detail:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?page=1

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

This article in New Scientist has considerably more information about the impact of pets beyond food:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

I first read this article in New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html

When they talk about the eco footprint of something, they include *everything* relating to that item. So with these cars, it includes the original manufacture, use of fuel during the car lifetime and subsequent emissions.

For SUVs, they are talking about 4.6l Toyota Land cruisers.

I do agree that environmentalists seem to be nit picking, but I think the general idea is that the Human species in general is using using far too many resources in every part of our lives for us to be around much longer!

It will make some pretty funky disco lights - and perhaps it could solve the mystery of the Deceased Salmon responds to portraits of people

Russia has conducted shorter simulations in the past and has seen firsthand the issues that arise, including sexual harassment. In an eight-month IMBP simulation in 2000, a Russian man twice tried to kiss a Canadian female researcher after two other Russians had gotten into a bloody brawl.

As evidence mounts that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn't the disaster the chicken littles have been preaching for the last 2 decades

What evidence is this?

To date a lot of the proxy data

To date a lot of the myths from deniers have been debunked.

Falcon

he problem is that mathematical rigor is absent from most environmental studies. This is kinda surprising. For a good overview see this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/

And to counter that site see this one: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Who should I believe those I can check the qualifications, if they are qualified, or those I don't know the qualification of? All I could find out about Steve McIntyre was that he was a Canadian computer analyst not a climatologists, meteorologist, or had another degree that qualified him to label scientists with the qualifications they are wrong. It says he "won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph" however one of the myth "New Scientist" debunks is the The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. And notice how that article was updated at "18:03 04 September 2009".

Quite a few highly regarded studies uses statistically dubious methods.

What is dubious is that Steve McIntyre has greater qualifications over the climate than climatologists.

Falcon

he problem is that mathematical rigor is absent from most environmental studies. This is kinda surprising. For a good overview see this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/

And to counter that site see this one: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. Who should I believe those I can check the qualifications, if they are qualified, or those I don't know the qualification of? All I could find out about Steve McIntyre was that he was a Canadian computer analyst not a climatologists, meteorologist, or had another degree that qualified him to label scientists with the qualifications they are wrong. It says he "won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph" however one of the myth "New Scientist" debunks is the The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong. And notice how that article was updated at "18:03 04 September 2009".

Quite a few highly regarded studies uses statistically dubious methods.

What is dubious is that Steve McIntyre has greater qualifications over the climate than climatologists.

Falcon

Briffa's "hockey stick" turned out to have been generated from a whole 12 tree cores

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong.

follow the money. Who's going to benefit from Cap and Trade? Who's already benefiting from Carbon Offsetting?

Yea, who's going to benefit by denying Climate Change is real. Coal, National Gas, Petroleum, and other fossil fuels. Ending on 30 June 2009 Exxon had 3 month profits of 21,019.00 billion, BP had 12,457.00 billion and Chevron had 11,583.00 billion. Do any scientists come close to making that much? If all scientists care about is money why aren't they working for oil companies?

Falcon

The New Scientist article on potential cooling that you referred to is here. The question is, after having attempted to discredit these scientists time and again, if it now turns out that the effect of North Atlantic Oscillation is greater than previously thought, would the climateaudit/wattsupwiththat etc. community believe them, and suddenly start championing what they say?

Isn't that a little weird, to rage against the Met Office again and again when it predicts warming, but then to rally around it when one of their scientists comes up with a possible alternative?

What we *never* see is a detailed description of exactly why it's bad... it seems to be that warmer weather would increase crop yield, right? Am I crazy? What makes that such a bad thing?

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production should answer your question.

The original, discredited Mann hockey stick

Climate Myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong, quote:

The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

The "Hockey Stick" was investigated by the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found:

the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

So, either you are wrong, or the US National Academy of Science is wrong. I wonder which is more likely?

The CO2 level and temperature aren't supposed to match up perfectly. Climate Change Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming and Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell.

The CO2 level and temperature aren't supposed to match up perfectly. Climate Change Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming and Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell.

That opinion piece by the Sydney Herald reporter makes repeated use of already discredited Climate Change Myths, in this case it appears to be some combination of:

• Global warming stopped in 1998
• Any cooling disproves global warming
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

That opinion piece by the Sydney Herald reporter makes repeated use of already discredited Climate Change Myths, in this case it appears to be some combination of:

• Global warming stopped in 1998
• Any cooling disproves global warming
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

That opinion piece by the Sydney Herald reporter makes repeated use of already discredited Climate Change Myths, in this case it appears to be some combination of:

• Global warming stopped in 1998
• Any cooling disproves global warming
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

That opinion piece by the Sydney Herald reporter makes repeated use of already discredited Climate Change Myths, in this case it appears to be some combination of:

• Global warming stopped in 1998
• Any cooling disproves global warming
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

That opinion piece by the Sydney Herald reporter makes repeated use of already discredited Climate Change Myths, in this case it appears to be some combination of:

• Global warming stopped in 1998
• Any cooling disproves global warming
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

Wow. You managed to hit quite a few Global Warming Myths in a single post. Your basic arguments have already been replied to many times:

• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

"Does that make you feel uneasy at all?"

If that's supposed to be a dig at the old hockey stick, I hope you are aware that the hockey stick has been analysed by several groups, and was found to be a reasonably valid reconstruction of the temperature record? Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong, quote:

The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

The "Hockey Stick" was investigated by the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, which found:

the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years

Let the mice steer the beetles!

And it's theoretical physics ridiculously far from being used in magnetic storage or computing.

Indeed, the new scientist article says:

In September, two teams of physicists fired neutrons at spin ices made of titanium-containing compounds chilled close to absolute zero. The behaviour of the neutrons suggested that monopoles were present in the material.

To get more detailed information on the monopoles than had previously been possible, Bramwell's team injected muons - short-lived cousins of electrons - into the spin ice. When the muons decayed, they emitted positrons in directions influenced by the magnetic field inside the spin ice.

This revealed that the monopoles were not only present but were moving, producing a magnetic current.

It also allowed the team to measure the amount of magnetic charge on the monopoles. It turned out to be about a 5 in the obscure units of Bohr magnetons per angstrom, in close agreement with theory, which predicted 4.6. Unlike the electric charge on electrons, which is fixed, the magnetic charge on monopoles varies with the temperature and pressure of the spin ice.

So you would have to cool you memory to almost zero kelvin and individually bombard each bit with neutron radiation and perhaps muons as well to write and read any data.

I don't think it's quite ready for the desktop yet.

There is probably no scientific evidence relied upon unquestionably, that has such serious issues regarding accuracy as fingerprinting. Check this out.

A perfect example of this would be the use of guns for self-defense and home defense. You'd think, from watching the news, that a law-abiding citizen who legally carries a gun has never stopped a crime.

No, what you'd think - if you actually read more news than you obviously have - is the truth. That statistically, law-abiding citizens who carry guns are much more likely to be shot dead - often with their own guns or those owned by their loved ones - than law-abiding citizens who don't.

You are a perfect example of those who believe journalism is a bullshit profession because your own personal views are not reinforced by the news you read. But the problem for you is that your personal views are not supported by day to day facts and events, and this is what you're reading about. While I doubt any journalist has ever said or written that a gun-toting citizen has "never" stopped a crime, statistically it is much more likely that they will be a victim of gun violence than the opposite, and that is likely what you are reading about - because it just happens a lot more often. Journalists can only report what is happening - it's not their job to make up facts to suit some bias. That is in fact what this thread is all about.

The same reason it was mandatory Desert Storm Iraq War 1990/91 we were ordered to take anti chemical weapon vaccines. They were supplied by America. I was very untrusting of this. I ordered my unit only to take the VX nerve agent injection as I sincerely did not trust the other's. I went against convention and could have been fired myself for ordering this, however I am very proud to say, before that war started I had every soldier drilled perfectly to put on NBC suits and Gas Masks under 30 seconds. I was called a bastard for making them do it, but do you know what? Each and every one of my troops came back without "Gulf War Syndrome" You can read further data here http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726473.800-gulf-war-syndrome-linked-to-nerve-gas.html Sometimes however with the VX nerve agent injection I can get terrible nerves as do other's from my unit from time to time, but this could have been a lot worst for my troops if I did not order them to not take the others. Yes it is a sad situation and as usual, nobody is taking responsibility but there have been some compensation payouts by the MoD. I hope this post is allows you to make an informed decision.

Maybe it is because of the extremely low temperature at the moon's poles and that any robotic being would not survive. I also understand that any water ice exposed to the sun on the moon would almost instantly sublimate, so I guess that an impact lifting tons of moon regolith is the most logical step in seeing water ice for a short moment, right before it sublimates because of the sun's energy it will be exposed to.

Leads you to wonder what other simple concepts he can't get straight.

Well, if you're tired enough it's easy to fuck up and do something stupid when you actually know better. The moral of the story is make sure you finish drinking your coffee before you check your email.

I hope this guy finishes his coffee before he drives to work. You, too. I found this article interesting; it seems one can be both asleep and awake at the same time. It explains Mueller's near fuckup.

The article you linked to links to another relevant article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16550-why-sustainable-power-is-unsustainable.html

The travesty is the fact that mainstream medicine is regulated and sued to death, to the point that care becomes unaffordable for many who could otherwise afford it, not that natural medicine is unregulated.

In any case, I don't think that you have 'big natural' in the same way that you have 'big pharma' since there's not the same barrier to entry with natural products that there is with pharmaceuticals. There are virtually no patents. No 100 mil to produce a drug (that you then want to see brough to market.) Those kinds of conditions strongly favor a few major players. And they favor regulatory capture.

While I'd agree that there are a lot of scams related to CAM (particularly homeopathy) and that people could afford to be more credulous I don't agree that there's no mechanism for how some of the stuff works (even some homeopathy), or evidence that it does. Naturopathy has well documented mechanisms. It's not unreasonable to think that acupuncture might relieve pain. Acupuncture demonstratably alters blood flow, among other physiological changes.

In addition, research shows acupuncture can help manage postoperative dental pain and alleviate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. It also appears to offer relief for chronic menstrual cramps and tennis elbow.Mayo clinic

(Granted, pain related studies are very hard to objectively conduct. )

Despite it's high specific impulse this engine isn't the whole answer to the exploration of the solar system. Blame the inverse square law.

It may be feasible to power an slow unmanned Earth-Moon VASIMR transfer vehicle with solar, but at Mars solar radiation is only 25% as strong and at Jupiter it's 4%. So you are talking about nuclear for probes to the outer planets and for manned missions to anywhere.

There's nothing technological that would stop space-based nuclear but you just know it'll take years to get that done.

New Scientist has an article that says VASIMR + nuclear = 39-day transit time to Mars.

Dear Conservative,

President Obama and his gang of socialist cronies, are not only trying to loot health care, loot your energy bill, take away your guns, turn you away from god, break up your family and destroy your cultural heritage, now they are going to spy on you to do it. The vast spy apparatus run by the Federal Government has its eye firmly cast on you as liberal scientists work to develop insects that can be controlled by computer and made to either watch or attack you. This isn't made up stuff. They even brag about it with a press release.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17895-freeflying-cyborg-insects-steered-from-a-distance.html

Don't worry though, the Treatyst has all the answers for conservatives:

We expose Obama by tracking his failures.

http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/presidentsprogress.aspx

We have our own answers on health care

http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/singlepayer.aspx

Plus we got stuff about fast food

http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=2000caloriedodge&image=0

atomic bombs

http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=manhattan&image=0

Plus, we got technology, like some benchmarking about C# vs C++ (fancy that, C# is faster than STL on C++)

http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/cpp_vs_csharp_arrays.aspx

And finally we make fun of that liberal Cold Play song with a really bad right wing parody of our own (lyrics only)

http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/vivalavida.aspx

Fellow conservatives, you have to be informed to avoid being shackled by the chains of Obama's socialism and enslaved by his Chicago liberal crooks and cronies. Just the other day, President Obama's top school guy admitted telling school age little boys not to report getting raped by sexual criminals. It's only going to get worse, before it gets better, and you have to stay on the ball. The Treatyist can help you stay on guard.

Check out the Treatyist today!

http://www.treatyist.com/

According to this article the only problem an IT guy should have getting laid is the fact that an 80 hour work week doesn't leave much time for anything but work.

I don't know how you could actually work 80 hours a week. I work 37.5 a week (not including lunch time -- I have to take 45 mins a day (or more) for lunch, so it's 41hr/wk) and I feel I don't have enough time to do enough stuff.

According to this article the only problem an IT guy should have getting laid is the fact that an 80 hour work week doesn't leave much time for anything but work.

And, women don't go for "glorious" guys, they go for tall, rich, funny men. Usually they'll settle for one of the three.

There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)

There was actually. I remember reading an article about it in magazine in a Doctor's office circa 1980. I recall this quite vividly because I was around 10 at the time and it scared the heck out of me.

I was just a toddler then, but according to new scientists, it was a few scientific articles that was blown way out of proportion by the media. Supposedly, back then, there were about 44 articles predicting warming and 7 predicting cooling.

Certainly, the Europeans dominate the winners of Noble Prizes in science.

Germans invented the jet aircraft, the guided missile, the computer, calculus, etc. The English invented calculus. The French developed the metric system. Also, the Japanese have done quite well. They invented the blue light-emitting diode, hybrid engines for cars, process technologies for cost effectively producing large LCD screens, etc.

The one group that is missing from this arena of technical accomplishments is Africans and African-Americans. Why are they absent?

We know that African IQ is small than Japanese/European IQ by about 20 points. Can this large difference in IQ explain the gross failure of all societies dominated by Africans?

. . . Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do.

You need to reread the article you cite. It states "Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year," and earlier states "The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. " so non-human processes contribute many more times more CO2 emission than modern humans.

They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

3 myths in one go? Not bad. First link on google for climate myths gives 3 rebuttals: Chaotic systems are not predictable, CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas and finally CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

3 myths in one go? Not bad. First link on google for climate myths gives 3 rebuttals: Chaotic systems are not predictable, CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas and finally CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas